2016 (8) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Letter of Undertaking (LUT). The appellants were of the view that goods supplied to SEZ developers/units is export and took credit on all inputs (Rs.18,40,670/-) used in manufacture of goods supplied to developers/units in SEZ. The department on the other hand entertained the view that credit on the inputs used in goods supplied to SEZ is not available, as these supplies are to be treated as exempted goods . It is the case of appellant that due to pressure from department, the appellant reversed the credit of Rs. 18,40,670/- by making debit entry on 12/01/2009 and 16/01/2009 and informed the same to the Superintendent of Central Excise, vide letter dated 19/01/2009. 2. In spite of this payment, a show-cause notice dt. 12/02/2009 was ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to double payment. The appellant re-credited their books of account with Rs. 18,95,888/- in July 2009 and disclosed the same in their ER-1 return. 5. During the scrutiny of ER-1 return, it was observed that appellants had taken irregular credit of Rs. 18,95,888/-. A show-cause notice was issued which is the subject matter of the present appeal. According to department the appellant after reversing the credit of Rs. 18,95,888/- under protest which was the credit availed in respect of inputs used in manufacture of final products supplied to SEZ developer, took suo motto credit of the same amount, which is in contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority observed that there is no provision to take suo motto credit and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2014(302) ELT 45 (Mad.)] and CCE,C&ST, Bangalore Vs. Stumpp Schedule & Somappa (P) Ltd. [2015(319) ELT 146 (Tri. Bang.)]. 8. Against this, the learned AR supported the findings in the impugned order. He urged that the appellant cannot take suo motto credit. The appellant ought to have filed a refund application under Section 11B. That therefore the appellant having contravened the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by taking suo motto credit, the demand raised is sustainable. He drew support from the judgment laid in BDH Industries ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2008(229) ELT 364 (Tri. LB)]. 9. I have heard both sides. The question is whether the recredit taken by the appellant is admissible or not. It is not disput....